I'm regretting giving my husband a Kindle 3

[abookreader]

If you plan to go the 100% known legal route, then you can forget library eBooks. The only way to do it knowingly 100% legal is to get a 650* and then library eBooks can be borrowed.

*Or one of the numerous other devices which can display Adobe Digital Edition DRMd files.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by abookreader

*Or one of the numerous other devices which can display Adobe Digital Edition DRMd files.

Jon's a bit of a Sony fanboy .

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If you plan to go the 100% known legal route, then you can forget library eBooks. The only way to do it knowingly 100% legal is to get a 650 and then library eBooks can be borrowed.

Or a Nook, or a Kobo, or a Pocketbook, or any number of other e-readers that use EPub.

I would suggest the Nook, again, because it is about the same price as the Kindle where as the Sony is more expensive.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One very significant different is that of course MP3 files have no DRM, so that if you keep them longer than the agreed loan period you're probably violating the terms of the contract between you and the library, but not breaking copyright law.

Well, I don't know about that...follow:

It appears to be true, as stated in that court decision, that the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act only concerns matters of copyright.

Keeping a dead-tree book out of the library too long is indeed not a copyright violation. Even at worst, they can charge you with stealing a book, not violating copyright.

But we agree that keeping an ebook longer than allowed is wrong.
That issue is separate from the issue of stripping DRM, except of course, in the sense that stripping the DRM makes it possible to do with epubs, just as you can do it with an mp3 or other non-drmed library loans.

The copyright issue involved, and the specter of possible illegality come from the unauthorized duplication of a work, which is a basic copyright protection.

You have an effective license to duplicate a digital file and read it's contents for a period of time. If you keep the book, or the mp3, or the video, in a usable form longer than that, you are now in possession of an unauthorized copy of the work. That's a copyright violation.

The best argument for DRM stripping being legal, is the converse (or is it inverse?) of that scenario. The DMCA, as stated in that court decision, only prohibits circumvention of DRM in matters that would violate copyright.

As your library loaner copy is NOT a violation of copyright, because you are permitted to have a readable copy of it during that period, stripping DRM from it for the same use, for the same period, is not a violation of the DMCA.

That's certainly how I'd argue it. If I were a lawyer. Which I'm not.

Ethical matters of fairness of terms-of-use and whether Adobe or Overdrive has the right to insist that you use only certain hardware is matter separate from copyright concerns.

ApK

[twobits]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I'm not going to invest the time researching it, but I know that it has been determined that if you copy media for your personal use, do not distribute it, and do not make money off of it, it is not prosecutable.

No, you seem to be mixing old and new copyright law. It used to be if you did not make money off it, it was not prosecutable, and had to be pursued by the copyright holder in civil court. That is part of what changed with the DMCA.

I will agree that it is unlikely you will be found out if all you are doing is making your own drm free backups and never distributing the files though.

and I don't rely on wiki for anything

might want to, it probably is more up to date then you current memory.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

The copyright issue involved, and the specter of possible illegality come from the unauthorized duplication of a work, which is a basic copyright protection.

You have an effective license to duplicate a digital file and read it's contents for a period of time. If you keep the book, or the mp3, or the video, in a usable form longer than that, you are now in possession of an unauthorized copy of the work. That's a copyright violation.

That aspect of it had not occurred to me. You're absolutely right; once your licence expires copyright then does enter into it.

Thanks for pointing that out!

[FF2]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Courts (or rather, judges) also interpret the law, and those interpretations very often set legal precidents which other courts then follow. A court can certainly decide, for example, whether or not a particular activity constitutes "fair use".

A good example was the 1984 "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.," case (464 U.S. 417), where Universal Studies tried to prohibit Sony from selling video recorders, claiming that they infringed copyright. Sony won, and the case set a number of important legal precidents, which still exist today: that manufacturers of recording devices cannot be held responsible for acts of copyright infringement committed with those devices, and that recording of TV shows for the purposes of time-shifting constitutes fair use.

If I am correct, I doubt that Sony believes in that position any longer - as they are now an Entertainment providing company that would probably prefer to protect their property from copying and/or liberating from copy-protection.

I have noticed that their dvd players do not play divx xdiv disks or avi content.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by twobits

No, you seem to be mixing old and new copyright law. It used to be if you did not make money off it, it was not prosecutable, and had to be presued by the copyright holder in civial court. That is part of what changed with the DMCA.

I haven't seen anything which changes the personal use premise

might want to, it probably is more up to date then you current memory.

nope, wiki is way too full of holes. you can use it as a launching point if you like, but I refuse to use it. if it has a good cite, then follow it through to source, then I will look at the point of origin. it is little better, and often much worse than relying on heresay

[twobits]

Originally Posted by travfar

But it has been determined. 27 years ago. These copyright issues are not new. The battleground for it was when home VCRs came out. That case went all the way to the supreme court. The ruling was in line with what most of the pro DRM strippers have said. As long as you do it for personal use and don't profit from it, it's legal.

Thats part of the problem. That was the determination under the previous copyright laws. We do not yet have the body of case law for the DMCA to see if it holds up as written or not. People now seem to often mix rights they used to have as still being active under the new law which is not true in the law itself, so we wait for it to be challenged.

[twobits]

What do you want to say about the personal use premise? If you use it personal you get personal liability?


Nothing in the DMCA grants an exception for personal use or lack of a profit motive.

[twobits]

Originally Posted by Newfie56

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forum, having been brought here by my attempts to redeem myself -- and the Kindle gift I gave my husband for Christmas. He is a prolific reader, checking stacks of books from the library regularly. When he asked for an e-book reader for Christmas, I posted on my facebook: "Kindle or Nook?" and the Kindle responses outweighed the Nooks. I got him the version with 3G & wifi. I simply assumed (you know what they say about that word) that it would be compatible with the ebooks offered from our library.

I would say return it and get the nook or other library book compatible device as that sounds like one of his main requirements for the ereader.

One thing that I have not seen mentioned yet is Adobe could come out with an update tomorrow that breaks the way the circumvention works, and while compatibly devices should just need a firmware update, you will be out of luck on the kindle for a bit, till someone figures out how to break it again. Seems no point to rely on a unsupported 3rd party workaround for one of your main uses.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Or a Nook, or a Kobo, or a Pocketbook, or any number of other e-readers that use EPub.

I would suggest the Nook, again, because it is about the same price as the Kindle where as the Sony is more expensive.

True, but only the Sony and the Kindle have the new Pearl screens, and the OP might prefer the better contrast. I'm quite partial to Sony's touch screen and dictionaries as well.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by Latinandgreek

True, but only the Sony and the Kindle have the new Pearl screens, and the OP might prefer the better contrast. I'm quite partial to Sony's touch screen and dictionaries as well.

Yup. I was more reacting to Jon's post ignoring the other EPub readers.

I would hope that the OP would start a new thread asking for advice on an EPub reader is she chooses to return the Kindle. I get the feeling that she might not be aware of the many choices she has and all the various features that she has to choose from.

[Newfie56]

The husband's sticking with his Kindle. (Yes!!!) I'm going to keep an eye on this forum and start making some serious hints for one reader or another, though, come birthday time!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by twobits

What do you want to say about the personal use premise? If you use it personal you get personal liability?


Nothing in the DMCA grants an exception for personal use or lack of a profit motive.

by the same token it has not been made prosecutable for PERSONAL USE!